Interestingly, the garages of suburban homes - those indestructable, unheated, unair-conditioned, concrete floor spaces for two side by side cars, played an oversized role in the creation of two of the largest corporations ever envisioned;
Apple and Google.
Location, location, location. The garages were in the heart of old auto suburbs, prosperous but not ossified. Space was relatively cheap - inviting to startups. And the kitchen in the house could be shared.
I laugh when I see the fancy, expensive starter spaces now available in The Valley.
This CEO says that she found ".......the company’s mission of helping people find the right information as inspiring."
The right information? I entered a search term into google, something like 'woodstove performance reviews', because I was thinking of replacing our old stove. What came up FIRST was a youtube video featuring a fellow namecd Alex Jones yelling that 'jackbooted EPA thugs were seizing woodstoves nationwide.' Woodstoves are heavy. Seizing them would be very difficult and very sooty. So although at the time I did not know who Jones was, I knew this was bad data. And pro-fascist bad data.
We need to break up large media and social media companies before their greed further erodes our democracy.
1
I never realized this brutal aspect inside YouTube apparently 'commanded' by the furious competition in the field, as I enjoy that wonderful section about classic music, particularly the medieval, baroque, and the Renaissance era. Really enjoyed during these 'sacred' days « The Llibre Vermell And The Cantigas De Santa Maria » in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ios-NT0fNI
How will Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. ever solve the problem of inappropriate content, when the account of the supposed custodian of American values spews wanton lies, obscenities, and hatred on Twitter daily without censure?
2
Re the communications utility YouTube. The real panic here is not at children being exposed to objectionable content but that Establishment outlets such as the Times have lost their media monopoly over information and can no longer act as gate keepers, the source of their old power. It really enrages them . . . .
Welcome to the dream society as envisioned by the libertarians.
1
It's odd that there's no mention of Ms. Wojcicki's central role in getting James Damore fired from Google for crimethink:
https://www.takimag.com/article/a_tale_of_two_sisters_steve_sailer/
1
Where is the regulation to this ill-thought-out industry called Silicon Valley? Have they bought all of our politicians? Are any of our politicians looking to the European nations who are regulating technology in important ways? It's just not enough to tell me not to turn on YouTube. Clearly, as with most industries, this one is incapable of policing itself.
1
I want a free Internet, free to use and free from sewage. And safe for children. People who want the sewage can pay for it and thereby fund the human reviewers needed to keep the free Internet a joy for most of humanity.
Adults who want to see the unsafe content would probably appreciate their children easily being prevented from seeing it.
While appreciating the myriad problems outlined here (as well as the apparently mind-boggling difficulties in approaching those problems) I would simply state that of all the services available on the internet, You Tube has provided me with most consistent benefit. I use it mostly for access to music, both live performance videos and "studio versions" of songs, tunes, etc.. I can watch The Beatles, The Stones, Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, or Vladimir Horowitz playing Liszt. I can get lessons on playing and practicing. It's simply marvelous!
4
The internet is a wild and free place, trying to control it is probably impossible. Blaming a CEO for not doing the impossible is well foolish at best.
5
Exactly what we call "disruptive technology." She seems to be best qualified to deal with the monster she created. Has the best qualities of a leader - and importantly, where the buck stops. Do I trust an elected official or a select committee to do better? No, definitely not. Those rules can come after the market has stabilized or when companies don't accept responsibility. Great article.
2
I LOVE YouTube and watch about 30-45 minutes daily, but I, too, have struggled with the social consequences of some of its more odious content and YouTube’s response.
After reading this article, I’m much more at ease with YouTube and its leadership. It seems like they are good people, trying to contain the monster they’ve created. I don’t know if that is really possible, but don’t have a solution either.
How does one control a beast like YouTube, with 500 hours of video uploads EVERY minute of EVERY hour, of EVERY day? It’s just not realistic. The only possible control will be through massive AI, which presents its own set of challenges. Yikes!
2
Inspiring leadership from Ms. Wojcicki on many levels. Many thanks to her for agreeing to be profiled.
Thanks too for an article about a rare Silicon Valley leader - strong, grounded, clear, and willing to be transparent, responsive and responsible, not just on a business level, but on a moral and human level.
The Valley - and the country - could use more leadership like hers.
3
I get so angry when a tech executive says something like "we can't just flip a lever and solve the problem, that's not how it works". Well, my dear, you created the system. If you can't manage/control it, shut it down.
4
@Craig Scott
"Wrong! Sounds good. Doesn't work"-Donald Trump
Ms. Wojcicki does seem action oriented, and that is necessary and good.
Still think the big data trackers like Alphabet, Facebook, .. should be forced to stop the data mining without explicit, simple opt-ins on the part of their users.
Also this these are monopolies that should be split up.
The business model depends upon advertising, which makes it inherently problematical.
1
Youtube has helped me find songs I was looking for so I could purchase the albums. Knowing what you hear (or see) is what you get is very helpful in that respect. I realize that a lot of people probably don't buy the album after listening to the song, but at least some people do.
I guess the problem with these sorts of tools is for every example of a role where it comes out doing something useful or even good, there are probably a dozen examples where the situation goes rogue. The growth of anything good is far overwhelmed by the seeming geometric growth of noxious toxic waste dumps.
3
YouTube provides information from many aspects about anything, and maybe everything. Some material may not be suitable for all, but at least for for some, and that is the principle of freedom of expression. Darwinism will decide what to stay and what to be purged, no need for Ms Wojcicki to get more involved. She and her staff did a great job to preserve the site the way it is. Stay out of this, NYT.
1
Countries are banning many social media sites. I’m in Asia and most people I talk to agree places like Facebook and you tube should be banned as little redeeming quality. If they can make it educational like Khan Academy or Ted talks then they can get approval to show.
It's crazy that it's someone's job to determine what can stay on YouTube and what can't. I think it makes the platform vulnerable to the biases of the people who are controlling it.
AND...there's the issue of filter bubbles. This article (https://choosetoencrypt.com/tech/collaborative-filtering/) explains how content recommendation systems, like YouTube's suggested videos, trap people in ideologies that match their own.
1
(Despite my college photo Im old and disabled, so I havent read all the comments due to neurological disability) It would seem to me that YouTube is a private forum, not one that is government owned and thus it seems odd to me that some think that "the First Amendment" ought to apply to a website. I was upset when Mark Zuckerberg was before Congress and the news media reported on it as though it were a Watergate hearing. The internet is World Wide and We have to adjust our American centered ways of thinking.
Google Royal family? Is this satire? I don't know what to make out of this article.
1
Here is another adult, Harvard alumna overseeing a company valued at $160 billion, who is, by her own admission, trying to please her children with her business decisions.
How about aiming to please God?
Have you ever seriously considered His view of your decisions and life?
Just curious. And concerned.
1
Not everyone believes in god, and if they don't, thinking about him doesn't make much sense. I think you're really questioning whether she applies morals to her decisions, and I believe the article showed she has been doing that.
9
@Mama
"There was a void of nothing..."-Genesis 1:2
Regrettably attempts to censor content will fail.
The more you censor the higher the demand for the censored content. The internet will oblige. I suggest that categories be established so that people who would prefer not to see any particular category could avoid doing so. Self-censorship.
The coming internet connectivity with satellites direct to cell phones will eliminate all borders to information much to the chagrin of oppressive governments who think they can control the beast.
"Thousands of human reviewers" were added. I'm concerned about who the heck they are. It's highly questionable if socialists or any with sentiments against privatization of government services are not part of this group.
Seems this simple...
Traditional news media – believing they both had and were entitled to a complete chokepoint on incoming newsfeeds, in the broadest sense of the words – excerpted from those feeds and captioned them as they saw fit...
Emerging social media turned that operating model on its head – anything and everything could be posted and edited by the readership, with the only limits being the sort associated with hate speech and its video counterpart...
Both the readers and the advertisers have spoken – even the NYT has realized that journalism needs to be more two-way, and approached from several (diverse and inclusive???) vantage points...
What I find most compelling about Google – in each domain where they archive the planet’s data, they strive to do it in the most neutral and boundless way possible...
And succeed...
This is less about philosophy – and more about information theory and data standards and world-class HW platforms...
Since the inception of NYT commenting – the capacity was, as I recall, changed once...
It was down-sized from 5000 to 1500 characters...
To put that in perspective – one (uncompressed) frame of 1080 video contains ~1000X the data of a 5000 character comment...
One second of (Nyquist-sampled) audio contains ~30X the data of a 1500 character comment...
2
The article has a fair share of negative views about Susan Wojcicki. I disagree with this view point.
It would be foolish to think that YouTube is not out there to make money! With that said, the complexity of the problem at hand are daunting. Google and other companies have the resources to tackle them. However, this is new territory and needs a combination of critical thinking and technology solutions to come together. This will take time. No company wants to lose a client. Big or small.
On the flip side, Facebook's challenges are different. Sleeping at the wheel. Having managed security/privacy for a company, I can say that their data management governance is very weak. Potentially sheer ignorance or intentionally ignoring the issue.
This industry is still in it's infancy. We need to continue to challenge the status quo. No question about it. However a perfect solution is not around the corner. This is work in progress. Tweak, tweak, tweak.
2
10. Wow & whoa & other semi idiomatic stuff.
9. What a boring responsibility ... not.
8. deciding what reality at the moment
is and/or oughtabe or shouldn't be.
7. Envious? Of course not consistently,
whatever sic(k) means to ye all.
6. I couldn't handle her job, and I am
hereby acknowledging truth as I non
objectively interpret the contextual
article itself, which is almost as good
as Damon Runyon's takes but actually
better.
5. Bright and more adaptive than is
allowed.
4. Outstanding, to express the obvious.
3. 23 and Me is also, Sis.
2. But does/can the world's paradoxes,
dilemmas, contradictions be ameliorated?
1. Google is giving us their best shots.
1
I am curios if anyone at Youtube has any concern about videos that are promoting things that are simply false, like flat earth and fake moon landing nonsense.
1
To summarize:
Youtube has served as a platform for, in no. Particular order terrorism, pedophilia, Islamophobia, Russian propaganda and copyright theft. Who exactly gave them permission to inflict such massive damage on our societ? Advertisers and Investors?
This is mindboggling.
Perhaps it is worth rememberingLenin's famous adage " The capitalist would sell the hangman his own rope"
6
My teenage daughter just informed me that YouTube is recommending Alt-right videos to her when she has no interest in the topic. She has complained to them but they persist. Have the Alt-Right hacked YouTube? Or is it Russians?
4
If the situation is chaotic it's because the original vision of YouTube was completely run-over by a goal of making it a crass commercial moneymaker. These all companies have now allowed anyone with a connection to the internet to yell "Fire!" which makes it even more dangerous. I like to stay up to date everyday regarding what is happening in the tech industry and things are just horrific everyday. Sometimes even developers are utopians at their core, they want everything to be perfect and almost never think of their software being used maliciously. So I believe can go sideways too. Which raises a point, who's actually really responsible for this? Due to some recent slow internet connections, this has really interrupted my thorough research into such situations.
2
"... the most important work that I will do in my career, because it’s setting a standard of responsibility for the internet.”
There is nothing responsible about the business models of YouTube, Facebook and the rest that require growth and scale at all cost. What I get from this profile is that a "measured" person is at the helm of it ... ? Ok.
I reflect to two quotes from this story: “If someone were to look back on the decisions that we’re making, would they feel we were on the right side of history?"
and
"When she became C.E.O., Ms. Wojcicki inherited an audacious goal:Get users to watch more than one billion hours of videos every day, a tenfold increase from 2012"
Did anyone ask what the moral and ethical, environmental or democratic consequences there might be for diverting so much attention toward youtube videos? What moral reasoning went into that business goal?
Youtube got people to watch, Google investors and owners got extraordinarily rich, and a lot of other smart people got well paid for writing software, and the entire world filled primarily with good and innocent people and not greedy people, paid a price because
in the end, the fastest and best route to riches was by spreading violence, hatred, child pornography, mass murder, lies, sensationalism, and junk.
Ms. Wojcicki is insulated by her friendships and her wealth, and the amazing free lunches at work, so that she can preside over such appalling consequences all of their making -- all in pursuit of 'one billion hours of viewing time.'
We all need to ask the first question: "If someone were to look back on the decisions that we’re making, would they feel we were on the right side of history?"
Why not cap salaries at 75,000/year, create a universal minimum income & prioritize justice, peace & the integrity of creation.
6
I love YouTube. However, its advertising has become increasingly annoying and horribly intruding (one day I received ads about menopausal drugs! and I am not there though technically I am in the age where I could be) and too often and too long (new 10 seconds compulsory clips like every 5 minutes for popular shows).
Ms. CEO if you read this kindy note that I also wish that each video showed in que would have an X in a corner so one could delete it and the YouTube would stop sending similar videos. I am most annoyed by the Tarot Readers who pose as giving astrological forecasts, and by the YouTube results on horoscopes searches which mix bona fide astrologers with an endless list of Tarot charlatans posing as astrologers with no possibility to separate between the two.
@Alexgri Why don't you use an ad blocker? I use AdGuard (with Chrome) and it works flawlessly. I can't even remember the last time I saw an ad in a YT video (or on the page, if they do that too).
2
YouTube is a cesspool of misinformation and a threat to civil society. Google gets rich while the social fabric of our country and the world is ripped to shreds.
I have personally begun writing advertisers and asking them to take down ads on Youtube. Responsible citizens should do the same.
3
Fact check: can you find one other source that has Susan Wojcicki was significantly involved in developing AdWords? Rather, she was head of AdSense, the widely-distributed publisher ad platform (display advertising). At the beginning, this was just those little ol' text ads, with the aim to continually improve how contextually relevant they are, so sort of the "anti-banner ad" style of Google display ad. Google was all about using their clout to scale that distribution at the time, to outrace competitors like Yahoo who also sought the small publisher market for contextual ads. Quality control (of publishers, on behalf of advertisers) was one of the most glaring shortcomings at the time. https://searchengineland.com/did-wojcicki-create-adsense-11639
1
Ms. Wojcicki, you have my deepest respect.
2
YouTube could cut down on the number of inappropriate videos by tweaking the rules for submission and their response to flagged videos.
1. Vet new posters. The first few videos submitted to be posted by new or un-vetted users could be viewed or spot checked and rated for appropriateness, and never allowed to go public if found to violate policies. AI could probably be trained to do this task reasonably well in the next few years.
Once new posters have a track record of acceptable content, they can post directly.
2. Suspend flagged content immediately. Have reviewers apply a more stringent and responsive standard of removing offensive or dangerous videos, especially those inflaming political issues and containing hate speech against groups or individuals.
If videos receive a threshold number of flags, permanently remove the video and close that poster’s account.
I hope you’re reading this, Susan. Too many people and groups targeted with hate speech have watched helplessly while flagged videos remain up and people’s lives and worlds are torn apart. This is unacceptable.
2
The scale of these problems did not exist until YouTube made it possible. I'm glad Wojcicki says "I own this problem," because YouTube does own it. One feature of success will be the appearance of smaller dodgy video networks because those problems will no longer be able to get on YouTube.
YouTube is worth $160 billion? If that's what it takes to fix the problem than that's what should be expected. If someone was running a meth lab in my garage without my knowledge I'd be expected to do something about it, even if it cost me more than my house was worth to clean it up. Somehow when billions of dollars of profits include creating problems, it becomes a process that never ends, never succeeds and never puts a dent in profits. Any of us can be fined by the government for more money than we have, if a business is big enough? The government only takes its 'cut', never all of it, never more than all of it.
3
Susan is a supremely balanced person, and frankly, given the contribution she made to Google through her shepherding of AdWords into a business model, I'm a little shocked she's not CEO of Alphabet. At one point, I calculated that at $39 billion in revenue, she might be the most powerful line executive on the planet Earth.
That notwithstanding, YouTube can certainly do better. And I expect it to do so. And I strongly suspect Susan does as well.
1
For all the whining about YouTube's content, I do not see it.
I see videos made by hobbyists and experts on all manner of things from gardening to home repair. I see travel videos of places I have been and places I would like to go. I see old documentaries and films that never see the light of day in commercial media. I can see concert videos of music groups up and coming as well as those long gone. I also see streaming news unfiltered by New York media executives- I watched the Brexit coverage for myself from the UK. I see live streams of Thom Hartmann's and Randi Rhodes' daily political talk shows. I can watch the political rallies of 2020 candidates live and unfiltered by the beltway political tastemakers.
I have no doubt you can find some strange stuff on YouTube, but I can find plenty of strange and objectionable stuff on broadcast and cable TV. To be honest, I get more value from YouTube than I ever did from YouTubeTV- which I just canceled over rising prices.
6
It costs money to turn the jungle into civilized space..in the publishing business we call that editing...and yes...censoring when called for. The main problems in the realm of content control that YouTube, Facebook et al have can be solved by making significantly more investment in the people and technology to do it. It's primarily greed that prevents that from happening.
2
Does Vimeo have the same problems as YouTube? I would argue that Vimeo is an example of a video platform which focuses on quality content first, and places profits second. I could be wrong. What do you think?
1
@Mark Kramer
Vimeo is different.
Vimeo is a platform for professional filmmakers.
If you want your video out for the filmmaking industry. Vimeo is the place to go.
Vimeo is full short films, travel films, docs etc.
It's by pro filmakers and for pro filmakers.
Unlike Youtube, where Youtube is a free for all.
I love you tube.
I use it for instructional videos, from bricklaying to electrical repair.
I watch great educational tv from around the world.
I listen to classic rock and roll.
For ancient movies better than any today.
The only thing I don't like about it are its ads, which you have to subject yourself to like punishment, before the good stuff comes.
Can I pay a subscription to disable them?
3
@frankly 32 All you have to do is use an ad blocker extension! I'm really surprised that so many people seem to be unaware of this. I use one called AdGuard and it works perfectly well for me with Chrome. I haven't seen an ad on YouTube for *years.* In fact, I forget that they even exist until I see people complain that they are seeing ads.
What's interesting to me is that AdGuard works so well with Chrome, which of course is Google, so you'd think that Google would engineer their browser so that ad blockers can't be used with it. But they don't!
Actually, yes. See YouTube premium. https://www.youtube.com/premium/about/
There is plenty of amazing content on YouTube, if you know how to find it and simultaneously stay away from the dregs.
However, YouTube continues to pay the price for its original sin (and ongoing neglect) of not investing enough in content review and management.
YouTube and Faceook are still learning, the hard way, that you can't just be a neutral "platform" when reaching many millions globally. You have to apply editorial judgment and guidelines, respect national laws, and know how to prevent your advertisers from becoming appalled at the context for their messaging.
When YouTube and Facebook truly step up to the plate and honor their civic duties and responsibilities (it will take thousands of editorial staffers), then they are moving toward being sustainable content platforms.
2
Whether or not this content leads or follows events, is a crucial argument. To me, it just seems a whole lot better that there is this content about which we have to have these discussions.
When have we ever had such knowledge of the sicknesses that dwell in humanity.
Of course, also the beauty and wisdom.
I grew up in Palo Alto at the same time as the Wojcickis where we acted in local children’s theatre plays. All the folks commenting about how she doesn’t seem like a “normal person” have to understand that in 1980s Palo Alto, a student getting B’s or C’s in school was considered a failure, everyone’s mom and dad was affiliated with Stanford, was a Hewlett, Packard, Nobel Prize winner, or succcessful professional. Everyone’s level of exceptional accomplishment makes for a ho-hum atmophere of normality.
4
Action to maintain revenue and profitability could easily be Ms Wojcicki's mission statement. Almost every action she takes is in response to advertising complaints. The public interest is completely irrelevant in that acting on it may interfere with the mission statement.
3
I treasure YouTube for making available many semi-obscure musicians and live performances by many of them. Sometimes a great performance has only 100-200 views, making the posting even more valuable. And I had to use YouTube to figure out a trick on how to replace the Jeep's back window wiper blade. As for the rest of it, ignore the political stuff.
"the power of trust and transparency far outweighs whatever regulation that may come our way.”
Benioff so states the fear "social media" lives with. "Trust and transparency"? There is none, and there never was. It was ALWAYS about profit, about ROI, and the abject fear that "regulation" in whatever form it ultimately takes, will somehow "rob" these entities of what they consider "theirs". Our society has been (and is being) DAMAGED by social media. People like Ms. Wojcicki, playing "whack-a-mole", know there is a built-in futility to that effort. Just look who sits in the WH! Their "edge" at this point, is that most legislators seem ill-equipped, ignorant and/or corrupted to the point they aren't ready to propose strong legislation.
But that legislation is inevitable. If the russians succeed again, next year, with their now-in-process attempts to subvert our election process ("Hey, it worked!"), what we called "democracy" will have become a distant memory. "Recommended for you!" doesn't really mean you.
3
Google, YouTube represents a far more sinister threat on open societies than extremism and radical ideologies. A topic this most measured person will never discuss on the record. That's how she's qualified as measured.
Aside from legalities, the platform doesn't seem that complicated. This should be expected for all CEO's.
She does not seem 'normal' or 'boring'. Rather, like many people who are powerful in the tech industry, she comes across as sociopathic, detached from the consequences her company has on people's lives, or the fabric of society.
At the beginning, these companies were great: Amazon enabled rural people to have an easier access to books, now it's a giant and terribly messy supermarket, you tube could have been seen as a way of improving knowledge and exposing injustice, but it's become a freak show, Elephant Man style, and it would hard to ignore that a search on Google is often commercially biased. If you add to it the surveillance tools and the pollution engendered by all that data storage, neither normal or boring seem quite fit.
8
You don't HAVE to watch or click on whatever it is you find objectionable. Whether you're a dog person and can't stand those cat videos, or you're a cat person and hate the dog videos, you could always learn how to do crown molding in your bathroom, or repair the transmission in your car, or even do some snake handling and join a new religion. Your options are endless.
2
I’m not here to condone videos encouraging hate and hazardous behavior, but after reading many of the comments I have to wonder if many here have viewed or even considered much of the genuinely good and useful content on YouTube. Yes, the newspaper fueled narrative makes one believe that it’s replete with Russian, pro-Trump propaganda, but I’m often led there when I need to find out how to perform a task with a particular piece of software, how to perform simple fixes on household appliances, how to replace parts in my car (saving $500 in the process), watching old documentaries, watching old music videos, watching college lectures, listening to meditation videos, and showing my daughter instruction videos on how to parallel park. These are but the few things that I have used it for recently and there’s so much more solid content beyond that. Can it be misused? Yes. Is it a demon? Absolutely not.
16
It seems to me that the whole idea of cyber space and the place of the individual within it needs to be looked at. For companies who provide these platforms to simply say that that is all they do and the devil take the hindmost is a cop out.
Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and all such "social media" companies have now allowed anyone with a connection to the internet to yell "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater. Truth is lost in the haze of millions of Tweets, videos, opinions posted by anyone with an axe to grind or with a fascination for fame they would otherwise be denied.
There needs to be rules, just like everything else in life.
49
@The Flylooper No, there doesn't need to be rules. You don't like it, don't watch it. The place of the individual is to be an individual with their own choices. No one is crying "fire"; you always have a choice to watch or not. Interesting that you think of "millions of Tweets, videos, opinions posted by anyone with an axe to grind" -- what are you doing reading them? No one is forcing you to do so. Having lived all over the world, I'll take the big, messy space of all opinions and freedom. Living in a place where you can't have that is the bigger problem. Scroll on by!
5
@Isavelives I think your point is tricky. The fact is, there ARE rules on "free speech" when it endangers lives (i.e. shouting "fire" falsely in a movie thearter.)
The idea of the "Wild West" and anything goes is unsustanable and dangerous (i.e. NOT everyone should be entitled to own a gun). There has to be set rules (laws) and monitoring in place. Yes, it wont be easy, but the alternative is worse.
7
@The Flylooper You will have a very unhappy life if you spend it trying to control what people do online. There are two sets of rules in this universe. The laws of the physical universe, and human made laws/rules. Of these, only the former has any long term hold on computing and the growth of the digital space with the latter only effecting those who live in countries implementing those laws. There is no way to stop this type of growth, it's self fulfilling because those who have free reign of their digital life will always outperform those who don't.
Arguments like yours are only ever made by the most digitally unproductive people because they stand to gain the most by limiting digital freedom. It's alarming to me that your solution to these perceived problems is to assign an authority to decide what can and can't be posted online, It's absolutely disgusting and is in direct conflict with the 1st amendment which allowed you to share your opinion in the first place.
4
It astounds me that the developers of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et. al. claim they never thought these platforms would be used in this way.
That's like a teenager saying they didn't think they'd lose control of their car if they drove 100 mph on a curving road.
These are not stupid people. They knew what they were doing. The First Amendment is being played against itself, and people are getting hurt. There are steps they could take, but the ACLU would have a fit.
42
@alocksley I disagree, as a developer who has worked with large platforms, a lot of what you work is worked on in ways you never envisioned. Developers are utopians at their core, they want everything to be perfect and almost never think of their software being used maliciously.
10
@alocksley Money. Money drives all these Media companies. Pewdiepie made $15 million last year. One person; on his own; making his own content. Imagine the profit YouTube is making. These companies are profit first; we are not responsible for anything; too bad so sad. With Trump/GOP Big Business in charge; do not expect any changes. Profit first. People? Not at all. Ray Sipe
6
@Ray Sipe
I remember when 9/11 happened President Bush and his staff had meetings with screenwriters to convey military stories that needed imagination saying the military needed to think out of the box. This was a different type of war.
Did everyone believe that these platforms were only going to be used in a normal manner. What in the world were these so called genius developers thinking. Now that all of our privacy is gone, we can watch murders taking place and the developers don’t know how to stop the abuse. I feel like technology is the measles epidemic it has no end.
These so called disrupters have created monsters I hope everyone is satisfied with the insanity there arrogance has created.
Greed has no boundaries when the American people are being treated as ignorant cattle.
3
This is a problem of "sweeping back the ocean" and Susan Wojcicki is a hero. The negative comments in here are basically unfounded and shortsighted.
In our home, we love what we call "YouTube university" and the free access to broad visual information. If there is any shortfall here, it is that Stan should have had 30 daughters instead of three.
3
What strikes me about Ms. Wojcicki is the emphasis on action. The other leaders mentioned in the article, those of Facebook and Twitter and such, talk and make excuses. Ms. Wojcicki's questions in the meeting quoted emphasize action taken. Her last quote in the article takes responsibility and emphasizes her determination to solve the problem. If only the other leaders of big social media were that action-oriented for the good, then I would be more confident about the future of this issue.
175
@Jenna
I think it’s naive to attribute a motivation other than making huge amounts of money through the sale of people’s attention. The platform is a cesspool because of this. The real problems that they are focused on are those that challenge this unfettered pursuit.
13
@mpk Yes - one wonders what is with this sort of article that paints CEOs as heroes rather than villains.
6
@Jenna
Funny. What strikes ME about Ms. Wojcicki is that she is just as money craven and sociopathic as the rest of her tech industry peers. As such, I know I can depend upon her to do as little as possible to actually fix the problems described in this article.
By the way, I'm a long time user of YouTube, and let me tell you it has just gone into the toilet over the last couple of years. Why? Because of Ms. Wojcicki's beloved "Recommended For You" algorithms, which offer me up filth and garbage I wouldn't have sought out in a million years if left to my own devices.
Then again, I'm sure as anything that Ms. Wojcicki's Stanford-trained software engineers have assured her this approach is the best way to enhance shareholder value. And her net worth.
13
Can you imagine working for a company that actively promotes and sells disturbing, violent, racist, homophobic and vile content, and dismissing it all with "We can do better?"
It's amazing how little grip the new tech-elite have on reality.
Randall, let's just suppose that your religion says, right there in "The Religion's Handbook", that men with other men, is punishable by death by stoning. Is your right to love another man, stronger than someone else's right, to practice their religion? To broadcast their opinion over the YouTube Universe? Who gets to make the rules that govern? Or, let us imagine that 2 ethnic groups, both feel that the right to exist does not apply to the other side. And they keep lobbing rockets and whatnot at each other. Since they hate each other, do you shut down one or both?
"Presents"? Strange word choice given that this usage nowadays is perhaps most common when talking about transgender individuals and which gender identity they present.
Why did the article writer take the time to write about what she was wearing and categorize it as boring? Would they have done the same if she was a man wearinga suit or typical SF male attire?
4
@Zee There is surely unfair treatment of successful women by the industry, the press, and the public. But the answer to your question "Would they have done the same if she was a man wearinga suit or typical SF male attire?" is Yes.
It's journalism 101. Image this article: "We held our interview in his octagonal, state-of-the-Italian-art office overlooking Sierra Mar. Sporting a faded Bruce Springsteen tee and hair the color of Colombian coffee, he swiveled his chair around to me greet me."
An exceedingly normal person does not run a business whose decision making software drives customers to more extreme content by design. Not software that chooses not to recognize guns and violence (it can) and choose first NOT to post unless a reviewer says it’s okay. They claim they can’t hire enough people to keep up! No they choose to prioritizing posting over public harm. The software is possible. Like Boeing, this corporation is making decisions to kill first, act later.
4
As a techie this article shows the major problem with non-techies perception of the internet. "The most chaotic place on the internet?" Youtube? Really? Youtube is tame compared to many places on the internet. And Im not talking the dark web, either. I'm talking the easily accessible from Google internet. Theres many sites out there just as accessible with absolutely no policing whatsoever of content. Probably that your kids know about and you don't. YouTube is in the news because its huge and people that use the internet only to read news, watch shows, check their mail or putter about know it exists.
The issue with the information age is that the content cant be controlled, cant be stopped. Its like a hydra with a billion heads, cut off one, theres a hundred more. Youtube is the equivelent of the tourist district. Sure theres some shady parts, but its policed and welcoming. The actual internet is the seedy red light district where its completely uncontrolled, the cops only go if they have to.
What you can do is a) monitor young children's internet usage. Treat it like a city. You wouldnt let a young child wander unaccompanied in a city, would you?
B) Raise kids to be smart about their internet. Teach older kids the realities of the world and dont shelter them. That way when they encounter something wrong or disturbing (and they *will* -you cant stop it) they can process it and know to talk to a trusted adult about what they saw.
35
A little YouTube is a dangerous thing.
2
All content including these comments in The NY Times are moderated. They have to meet a set of criteria before they are published.
YouTube could also have this model if there were industry standards to abide by. But there really aren’t. Not yet. So we will continue to see malevolent garbage on YouTube.
4
YouTube is a great tool, but also a sewer of trolls, bad foreign actors and harmful content. When P&G complained to YouTube about the Tod Pod videos:
"Within a few hours, the worst Tide Pod videos were scrubbed from YouTube, and the platform changed its algorithm so anyone searching for them would be shown a safety video." Why can't they do the same for conspiracy videos, political spam, porn, nazi extremists, trolls and bot postings, etc.? They seem to hop to it when it's a big corporate advertiser but work like snails, if at all, for the rest of society.
The gov't needs to regulate them because they refuse to do it themselves. If you publish content you need to be treated as any publisher is, and be responsible for that content. If it cuts in to your profits that is just the cost of doing business for all businesses. Why big tech has been immune is beyond me. Start regulating them, Congress.
7
Other than using YOUTUBE to view reruns of SNL and to figure out a how-to question, our family has stayed away. It used to be fun but has become a swamp of unpredictability: conspiracy theories, fake news, porn and other unspeakable acts, and lewd content all interspersed with some factual information, good music and comedy.
Better to just stay away than to let kids be exposed. As for the rest of us, don't we wallow enough in the swamp of everyday politics, uncivilized behavior, and disinformation on a daily basis without going to YOUTUBE.
Who really needs it?
5
People that know better know YT is a shell of what it once was, that it's unrecognizable to those that loved it the most, and it's been thoroughly transformed into a mass-money making machine while completely scrubbing clean anyone and anything that doesn't contribute to the making of mass amounts of money.
Regardless of the challenges she faces operating in that space, she has unquestionably overseen the most destructive period in YT's history.
4
I avoid youtube if I can, its all ads. We should just call it TV.
1
@Scott D
Television has standards and some basis setting expectations for what you view.
99% of youtube is artless garbage and irrelevant advertising.
To paraphrase Luke Skywalker "If there is a bright center of the content universe, this is the place it is farthest from"
Why are videos allowed to be immediately posted, without first, going through an approval process?
3
Because there are thousands posted a minute, reviewing each video simply isn’t possible. If they did that videos would sit in limbo for months, if not years.
2
That is exactly what I thought. The NYT verifies posters who have proven their civility and their comments are posted immediately. Why can’t YouTube? If you choose not to go through the verification process, then you will have to wait for your video to be “moderated”.
2
@Bryan That means that only 1000's of watchers in India is enough to moderate content. Easy.
So during the fire at Notre Dame de Paris an anti Muslim troll posted a video on You Tube of the fire with a doctored sound track of Muslims shouting Allah Akbar from an incident 5 years ago, implying the fire was started by them.
It was clearly a doctored video designed to fuel Muslim xenophobia and there is no absolutely no evidence that the fire was set intentionally by anyone.
You Tube was informed of this almost immediately and asked to take the video down. As of this writing it has not.
There is no rational excuse for You Tube’s inaction.
Same old story different day with Ms. Wojcicki’s leadership.
10
Some problems are easy, and some are hard. We have a highway system that results in tens of thousands of deaths a year. A lot of sophisticated safety features have been put in place to limit highway fatalities. But fatalities still occur in frighteningly large numbers. Perhaps someday we will find a way to eliminate highway fatalities altogether or to at least reduce their numbers dramatically. But for now, we all agree to live with it, and we do so without excessive rancor because we can all see how hard the problem is to solve.
YouTube is facing a problem of at least equal difficulty, but very few have any understanding of the scope of the problem or the challenges involved in solving it. We hear the shouts: "Fix it right now or else you are corrupt, or else you are morally bankrupt." Well, maybe some of the people involved in social networks are corrupt or morally bankrupt, but the majority of them struggle daily as best they can with a problem that is very difficult to solve.
It is not possible, of course, for everyone who wants to weigh in on this problem to learn to code. They can, however, try to educate themselves about how computers work, and why these problems are so hard to solve. It is fine, if not always reasonable, to demand an immediate solution, but it is wrong to assume that a failure to do so is a sign of moral culpability.
7
@Charlie Calvert, if a section of highway is having more accidents than other areas, they fix it by blocking off that area, put up stop signs, lights, warnings or whatever is necessary. YouTube refuses to slow down and review content before publishing because it costs them to much money, but it is the cost of doing business for any business. They need to take responsibility as publishers do. They should be regulated as every business is.
9
What is wrong with Youtube is what is wrong with Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon etc.
They are gilded age robber baron malefactors of great wealth.
They need to be busted up. They need to be fined up. They need to be locked up.
6
The reality is that people with malevolent intent, like hackers, will always be one step ahead of new inventions. For YouTube and others, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. Putting out fires must be exhausting.
92
@AV i just don't think that is true. It is a trope along the lines of "Whats The Use?" or "Why Bother?" it is just downhearted as well.
3
@AV, hackers are only the fringe of the core problem. The real problem is that by opening Pandora's Box, social media has given a megaphone to ISIS, white supremacists and other sorts of extremist movements all around the world.
Anyone who did not appreciate what removing the covers off of human nature would do is really socially inept.
1
So who is the real culprit in all of this? YouTube, trying desperately trying to manage inappropriate content or the bright lights of the world who insist on publishing said content?
My hat's off to Ms. Wojcicki: part ad goddess, tech guru, and mostly preschool aide.
Tide Pod challenge. Really?
81
Make no bones about it, Susan Wojcicki has ruined YouTube beyond recognition. Why she is celebrated is beyond me. If the situation is chaotic it's because the original vision of YouTube was completely run-over by a goal of making it a crass commercial moneymaker that now doesn't know what it's supposed to be.
43
@Birdygirl As opposed to ruining YouTube beyond recognition she is working towards and motivating her teams to grow AI to better manage shoddy content.
Unfortunately there is bad stuff going on, new stuff appears and as it is brought to her and her teams attention they are not burying it, instead dealing with it. They are doing this by developing tools and business applications to clean up each mess.
7
@Birdygirl
Blame Capitalism.
2
@Birdygirl
So the reason people are uploading terrible videos on YouTube is because it contains ads?
7
The problem could be likened to an immune system having to recognize invaders. The system will always need to be tuned. There is no grand solution, There are incremental fixes that work to some extent for the moment.
17
I'm so glad there's a technically competent mature motherly WOMAN taking ACTION, even if it's imperfect and the social standards are evolving and rules are not yet in place.
Her big-picture view and attempt to apply moral values to make decisions that will hold up over time is just what is needed.
Who better to work to keep ahead of the crazy new postings, help define acceptable content, safeguard children, and responsibly develop this very valuable platform!!!
10
You Tube is what the Internet was invented for - sharing information and knowledge.
This woman who is at the heart of profiting off other's work is the modern version of Madison Avenue's advertising firms from the 1950s. She isn't contributing the actual work (the high quality videos some of us use You Tube for).
I guess it's worth writing an article about another person exploiting other's work? Why? So we feel better about the current way things are run?
6
@a skeptic I'm not sure what your angle is, but the platform needs managing. Without someone working behind the scenes, there wouldn't be a platform for "creators" to make money off of at all. I don't know enough about Ms. Wojcicki to say whether or not she's doing a good job, but to say she's only profiting off other people's work is pretty unreasonable considering the amount of work I'm sure it takes to keep the ads flowing. The ads must flow!
Bringing the collective IQ of the worlds' population down, one day at a time.
19
@Cowboy Marine Sad, but true in most cases.
1
Did anyone ever shut down Freddie Kruger flicks,with the horrors in this world from mass shootings and their aftermath she seems to be more accountable than our politicians in a thankless position.
4
What's sad is You Tube allowing its users to call real People jobs and doing pranks and being paid by Advertisers for these useless pranks that is causing real Americans with families to lose their jobs. You Tube need better oversight and regulations. While their users are being paid to call customer service lines of credit card companies, banks and cable companies and harassing Agents for jokes and causing people to lose their jobs its not right. And You Tube need to do better.
2
Susan Wojcicki like so many intelligent, wealthy, successful leaders today can't seem to see understand basic human acts of right and wrong. They have apparently come to believe that it is ok to enable the the sexual exploitation of children - as long as you did not mean to do that. And that when you found out that you were in fact doing it - that you then "did your best" to reduce the number of children who were exploitated. The idea that it is not ok to enable the sexual exploitation of even one child is apparently not an option. There are many rationals such as, "we do more good than harm" or "if we did not offer this capability someone else more nefarious than us would". But how can anyone justify the enablement of the exploitation of even one child, or the radicalization of one extremist, or sparking even one school shooter into action ?
One would hope that someone so accomplished and wealthy would have the time for a broad perspective. But in reality she must be very busy and focused on running her business. and reinforced in her community's bubble.
Perhaps someday many at an old age she will reflect and see the bigger harm. And realize that one is too many. Unfortunately those epiphanies come long after the damage has been done and only in hindsight.
Until then tomorrow is just another day to try to do a better. To try to harm a few less children, to improve the algos to radicalize a few less people. How can anyone be product of that goal?
19
@Glenn
What is your recommendation? If one person uploads child exploitation to Youtube, should Youtube shut itself down?
If rope is bought at Walmart to restrain a child it order to abuse that child, should Walmart shut itself down?
You've questioned the humanity of the people working at Youtube because their platform has enabled these abuses... but you've offered no idea of what you think they ought to do otherwise. They clearly have invested the time and money to try and get this under control. But every day, roughly 55 years of continuous content us uploaded to Youtube. This isn't something that can be logistically solved by hiring more people.
I'm not asking to be combative or snarky. I am asking honestly, what should Youtube do differently?
68
@JimmyJames Agree with you Jimmy. I love YouTube. It is a highly valuable resource for so many things. Unfortunately the down side is everyone has the ability to publish unsavory, stupid and offensive content until it is reined in.
We as a society (globally) will always have to battle such forces. Like any leader, no matter how much good they do or accomplish, they will always have critics.
2
@JimmyJames, slow down the uploads and view them before uploading, change your algorithms to catch bad content, require transparency for posting, block bots and troll farms, whatever it takes. You could have public help immediately by just putting a 'report spam' button under the video, and 'report troll and/or bots button next to posts. It's really not as hard as they make it out to be.
16
YouTube can choose to be a pipe that carries water or they can choose to be a pipe that carries sewage. If the latter is more profitable (click, baby, click!), then, with the current incentive structure, what do you think they will choose?
20
She comes off as remarkably naive throughout. She never thought she’d have to have a meeting over bestiality, despite running a video service that allows user uploads with few controls in place; she was surprised when changing their ad policies (which directly impact thousands of people’s incomes) was so upsetting to some.
26
@T.M. Nobody anticipated bestiality at the time Google bought YouTube. If you claim Ms. Wojcicki is naive you must admit we were all naive. I'd rather praise her for fighting the bestiality.
1
You tube is a wonder of the world yet is proof how humanity always brings negativity or horror to what is good. Wise regulation is required in all human activities it seems , for the health of all of us .
5
YouTube (and all of the internet) has a very deep problem to deal with. The people who post repellent content are, in the physical world, neighbors, relatives, even friends - people we see and interact with every day, who usually seem more or less normal. In a sense, these posters are us - not alien others hidden away in dark basements who can be quarantined and excluded from the community. Ugly postings are not isolated, discrete events - they're on a spectrum that encompasses everyone's online behavior, even the most saintly of us.
I think the only solution to the problem of problematic content is to abandon online anonymity (which totalitarian governments have proven is mostly an illusion anyway). The whack-a-mole approach will never work. That's like hitting yourself in the head every time you have an inappropriate, unworthy thought. You can disarm those bad thoughts more effectively by looking at them and acknowledging their genesis in your own inner muck, than by trying to find a way to never think them in the first place.
7
YouTube has proven invaluable to me for all those 'how to' videos' and watching adorable animals vids like the Dodo. The only thing I hated was YouTube adding Google Plus to the comments, which completely destroyed receiving comments on my YouTube site. I miss seeing those comments on my YouTube site, which just went over 3 million views, which took over 10 years to achieve.
3
As the article mentions obliquely, advertising remains the fuel that drives the whole enterprise. In the aggregate, advertising has become like corporate oxygen... a few seconds without it and the creatures die, it seems. Everywhere we go, everywhere we look, everything we hear, almost everything has ads that attack us continuously. If anything could temper the trends that YouTube struggles to contain, it would be a limit on advertising... no more than X minutes per hour, for instance, which was a regulation for broadcast TV back in the "good ole days". These days many of us take great pains to avoid it in any way possible.
9
@Taoshum, Pervasive advertising is the inevitable result of the illusion of free user access to YouTube, Facebook, etc. Rather than pay a user fee for these services, people pay indirectly by being bombarded with ads. I have little sympathy. I also do not use those sites and have a policy of never clicking on ads on the NYT website or elsewhere.
3
Based on this article, it seems like action is mostly (if not always) spurred by advertisers removing ads from the site. Ms. Wojicicki seems like a really capable CEO, but in the end she is accountable to the profitability of her company, not the public. Ultimately I think the only way we get to a real solution is by having some controlling influence that is accountable to the public. Probably the government.
Until that happens, Alphabet's profits will be placed above public safety. It's unfair to expect a corporation to do anything but maximize it's bottom line. Given that, the responsibility to address these issues must fall to our elected leaders. Unfortunately, the folks in charge right now aren't equipped to deal with the problem.
54
@Pedro
"...controlling influence that is accountable to the public. Probably the government."
Good on paper, but the US government is increasingly less accountable to the public.
Maybe there could be a central, public clearing house of info on the internet; identifying all types of web irresponsibility/corruption incisively and convincingly enough to galvanize the public's will to boycott the offenders until they're proclaimed "responsible" by said clearing house.
Our only recourse is to deny these monoliths our money/clicks. Everything else falls short.
4
@Pedro The government is accountable to the public? How quaint.
2
@Pedro, spot on!
1
I see two conflicting purposes at work within YouTube. First, making money by selling ads. Second, keeping content from becoming dangerous, illegal or horrifying. These two purposes seem to me to be very challenging to manage responsibly, given how open YouTube is. The Times has chosen to moderate comments; I completely agree with this approach, but it limits the amount of content. YouTube wants to maximize the amount of content, and quality is secondary. I wonder if it is ultimately possible for YouTube to prevent horrible content. We will see.
29
Ms. Wojcicki is the right person in this thankless and relentless job. I’m impressed at her energy, judgement and decisiveness.
49
@JS
I think she is very well compensated financially which is her thanks for this job. She is an intelligent woman with a college degree - she could pick another job easily where she uses her energy, judgment, and decisiveness to help people.
12
@JS
Let's hope NYT will revisit in a year to see if anything has really changed. I'm not going to hold my breath.
4
@JS Susan is worth some $350M. Her job is far from "thankless."
5
Tough job. Great that there’s an action-oriented, tech-sophisticated leader with interpersonal skills, who can balance profit-seeking with good judgment.
20